It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

[Busted] NASA Tries to Conceal Lunar Structures?

page: 7
19
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
No they didn't. In fact they were in the foreground too.


Added to the foreground...

But you can stick with whatever you feel comfortable with.




posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by PsykoOps
No they didn't. In fact they were in the foreground too.


Added to the foreground...

But you can stick with whatever you feel comfortable with.


I think you are the one "BUSTED" in this topic. Showing image artifacts and constructing conspiracies on them. It is not the first time. It can be called some kind of"research". (?)



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
Showing image artifacts and constructing conspiracies on them. It is not the first time. It can be called some kind of"research". (?)


This thread is about how those 'artifacts' were removed from the later images depending on who was presenting them.

You should review the OP, you seem to have forgotten what this thread is about.






Whilst perusing the various Apollo image Archives, I began to notice some strange discrepancies in some of the images and one in particular.

Different servers had different versions of what was supposed to be the "same" image...





[edit on 5-8-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
This thread is about how those 'artifacts' were removed from the later images depending on who was presenting them.
The only problem I have with this thread (and other threads like this one) is that it is based on the assumption that the image you consider unchanged was the source (directly or indirectly) for the one you consider changed.

But that image (the darker one with the lines) has less detail than the other, as you can see in the following images.

Your "unaltered" image (click for full size)

The yellow areas all had the RGB value 2,2,2 (almost black, black is 0,0,0).

Your "altered" image

The yellow areas all had the RGB value 49,49,49.

As you can see, many areas that were all of the same colour on your "unaltered" image have different colours in your "altered" image, and the "altered" image is even smaller, making it more likely to have less detail.

So, unless someone went to the trouble of creating the inside of the small craters and the detail on the astronaut's shadow, what it looks like is that your "unaltered" version is the one that was really altered, probably a change in contrast in what you call the "altered" version will create something looking like what you call the "unaltered" version.

You see, even if NASA alters photos (and I know that they do that), it does not mean that they altered all the photos.

PS: you don't have to just believe what in what I wrote, you can use any imaging program to compare the images. I used Photoshop because it allows for a non-contiguous bucket-fill, finding all the pixels with that value.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Good Work Armap!

I wish I could give you two stars.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

This thread is about how those 'artifacts' were removed from the later images depending on who was presenting them.

You should review the OP, you seem to have forgotten what this thread is about.






Whilst perusing the various Apollo image Archives, I began to notice some strange discrepancies in some of the images and one in particular.

Different servers had different versions of what was supposed to be the "same" image...




You just discovered that different copies of the same original FILM image are different in subtle or more evident ways.
But this is natural.
Not one image is the "ORIGINAL". The original is a piece of film. They, one team, scanned (digitized) some time ago using one device, and published it Maybe they don't scanned the ORIGINAL piece of film, but one hard copy of it, distributed to various teams of specialists . Maybe later, another team, scanned again with a better device, the ORIGINAL, or another better hard copy, and published their result.
Do you expect every result of a copying and processing made by independent teams (no matter if inside NASA), at different moments of time to be exactly the same?

I can show you different variants of images with me, appearing differently one to other, but showing "supposedly" the same image (from example a picture of me standing inside a church made with flash, let's say). One image taken directly from what the scanner deliver, with low contrast. Other processed by me to eliminate red-eye and raise the brightness. Other variant proccesed to eliminate the noise, and to sharp details. Other to elliminate a dead pixel on the senzor just appearing ugly in my face. And other to eliminate scratches on the image (scratches form original film), all of them variants together with my growing knowledge and willing to make the perfect picture. I've done all of this. And maybe other variant posted on ATS as GIF, with different resolution and colors.
You will find there conspiracies?!?
This proccessing and enhancing is natural, you know...



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   
The scratched version was a digital scan from an old print. The better non scratched version was a recent scan from the original film with a film scanner.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Originally posted by Nightflyer28
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


The scratches/objects end at the Horizon.

They might not all be scratches. Scratches may have been added after the fact to disguise the objects - it worked on you.


Sorry, not buying it.

I just looked at the pix again - the scratches and so forth end at the horizon because the horizon is bright white light, just like the scratches.

They don't disappear at the horizon, they merge with it. The light in the scratches merges with the light at the horizon. Just the way the light on the rover is increased, and increases its apparent size.

Follow me?



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nightflyer28


They don't disappear at the horizon, they merge with it. The light in the scratches merges with the light at the horizon. Just the way the light on the rover is increased, and increases its apparent size.

Follow me?


You are right, the scratches do NOT end at the horizon. This is a crop of the scratched version of the image AS16-109-17802. This area is right in the middle of the photo, well below the horizon, and you can see the scratches here too:




See the full image here:
www.spacearchive.net...

[edit on 14/8/09 by ziggystar60]



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
The Clementine Browser 1.5 has been updated to version 2. and along with the update, many of the anomalies have been removed. The old browser interestingly doesn't seem to work anymore.

Version 1.5
www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil...

Version 2

www.nrl.navy.mil...

I worked with 1 photo in particular, the most curious one. The first Pic has the anomaly, which to this day, I cant figure out what it is they blurred out.



The second photo taken from the new browser v.2 on the site, the anomaly is completely removed, and well done at that.

Its the same crater in both photos, that was located on the bottom left corner of the map.



Very interesting indeed. I swear the object in picture 1 looks like some kind of massive piece of machinery. I just dont know...but it is curious



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by PatriotG
 

The "anomalies" on the older version of the Clementine image browser only exist (or existed) on the browser itself, the photos that both versions use never (as far as I know them, since maybe 2006, although the file dates are much older than that) had those things.

From what I have seen, most, if not all, of those "anomalies" were missing photos, and they probably replaced them by other versions from Clementine (Clementine had three cameras and many filters), and I have noticed that in some places we can see that the photos are slightly different, suggesting that they used a different wavelength to "fill the hole" left by the missing image from the same wavelength as the other photos.

You can see (and download) all Clementine photos here.

Edited to say that Clementine had four main cameras and a star camera.


[edit on 13/9/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Thanks for the insight, I don't have a lot of technical knowledge with regards to the Clementine system. And I know exactly what you are saying.

You can browse through all the photos and some of them have black sections. Rectangles, triangles etc... , and I assumed that they were missing portions.

But this particular photo, I'm not sure that is the case. The anomaly isn't just a black square or rectangle like a lot of the other missing sections.

There appears to be some detail on the right of it, which is difficult to analyze.

And this anomaly appears to have been deliberately blurred, not filled in, , if I understand you correctly, By the older browser?

Very curious.

Thanks again.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by PatriotG
 

The older image browser did not had black areas, it used, apparently, the images from both sides and created an "imaginary" image when it did not had anything to work with, that's why those "blurred" areas look like they were "painted" from left to right (or vice versa), because that was the way the system worked.

But the above is just my opinion as a programmer, I do not know exactly how it worked.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   
i find thids kind of sfuff very sad people want to believe in something greater or more powerful than themselves that are willing to take a grain of sand and build there own mountain. The truth is, no one is really in charge, no one has the answers, no one is as powerfull as you would hope.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by citizenbob
i find thids kind of sfuff very sad people want to believe in something greater or more powerful than themselves that are willing to take a grain of sand and build there own mountain. The truth is, no one is really in charge, no one has the answers, no one is as powerfull as you would hope.


Believe in what? What are you talking about?
Since when did curiosity and discussion become sad?

If certain scientists had not asked "What is this fungus" we would not today have penicillin.

Thanks for adding your 2 cents.

EOM

[edit on 13-9-2009 by PatriotG]



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by franspeakfree
 


Here is a clue...

"I remember thinking my life was in jeopardy..."

and then,

"I remember naively thinking, 'I can't wait to go home and hear about this on the evening news.'"

Reconcile those two statements-- go a., try!




top topics



 
19
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join